The space shuttle disaster claimed seven lives with school teacher Christa McAuliffe on board. A fault technically caused this disaster in the O-rings seals. The case study also showed that the tragedy resulted from flaws in decision-making process presented by the organization structure and culture. The warnings of O-rings seal failure were communicated three months before departure, but the NASA and Kennedy space center management ignored. This study prompts to identify whether advocacy or inquiry approach dominated the decision-making process and if DeBonos parallel thinking would have worked in the challenger situation.Decisions are important aspects in the running of an organization. However, not every decision made is useful and effective to the problems identified. Advocacy approach of decision making represents a management by exemption situation. Further, where the leaders advocate for decisions, they feel strongly about without inquiring other expertise views on the matter. Inquiry approach of decision making represents an ideal and realistic handling of decisions. They discuss the problem without expressing personal agendas or opinions. Instead, they advocate for the stands they feel strongly about and then inquire other viewpoints from external expertise on the issue. In the case of the disaster, the advocacy decision-making approach dominated. The reasons are their concept of decision making was that of a contest. NASA had ambitious goals to create an operational shuttle and institutionalize a heavy schedule of flights. Hence, they persuaded and defended their position to continue with the flights regardless of the dangers posed and conviction they received from the engineers. Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for O-ring seals repair and his engineers, had strongly opposed the launch. However, their regards were not valued and dismissed making them reverse their allegations and recommend a go situation.DeBonos parallel thinking is a process where the issue of subject matter is separately split in different directions to enable members critically explore and come up with knowledgeable facts, proofs, and comments. When applied within groups, it focuses on proving or disapproving the comments put across thereby eliminating the ineffectiveness of groupthink. DeBonos parallel thinking would not have worked for the disaster. The process has perfect decision-making resolutions, but the strong forces displayed by the organization structure and culture only supported the space shuttle top management and director personnel’s decisions. It was difficult to present any opinion for fear of disapproval and discouragement as it happened to Thiokol after he was asked by the space center managers when he wanted them to launch. The space shuttle challenger tragedy occurred as a result of flaws in the decision-making process. The challenger case used advocacy decision-making approach which makes it difficult for DeBonos parallel thinking to work out. Decision-making process highly depends on the organization structure and culture for it to be effective and useful. Reference:David Moseley, Vivienne Baumfield, and Julian Elliott, (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press, pg 135.Edward De Bono, (1994). Parallel thinking: from Socraticthinking to de Bono thinking.Viking ISBN, Pg 36-38.Ronald C. Kramer (1994). The Challenger Explosion: Communication Ethics. Wadsworth Publishing.Decisions are important aspects in the running of an organization. However, not every decision made is useful and effective to the problems identified. Advocacy approach of decision making represents a management by exemption situation. Further, where the leaders advocate for decisions, they feel strongly about without inquiring other expertise views on the matter. Inquiry approach of decision making represents an ideal and realistic handling of decisions. They discuss the problem without expressing personal agendas or opinions. Instead, they advocate for the stands they feel strongly about and then inquire other viewpointsThe space shuttle disaster claimed seven lives with school teacher Christa McAuliffe on board. A fault technically caused this disaster in the O-rings seals. The case study also showed that the tragedy resulted from flaws in decision-making process presented by the organization structure and culture. The warnings of O-rings seal failure were communicated three months before departure, but the NASA and Kennedy space center management ignored. This study prompts to identify whether advocacy or inquiry approach dominated the decision-making process and if DeBonos parallel thinking would have worked in the challenger situation.Decisions are important aspects in the running of an organization. However, not every decision made is useful and effective to the problems identified. Advocacy approach of decision making represents a management by exemption situation. Further, where the leaders advocate for decisions, they feel strongly about without inquiring other expertise views on the matter. Inquiry approach of decision making represents an ideal and realistic handling of decisions. They discuss the problem without expressing personal agendas or opinions. Instead, they advocate for the stands they feel strongly about and then inquire other viewpoints from external expertise on the issue. In the case of the disaster, the advocacy decision-making approach dominated. The reasons are their concept of decision making was that of a contest. NASA had ambitious goals to create an operational shuttle and institutionalize a heavy schedule of flights. Hence, they persuaded and defended their position to continue with the flights regardless of the dangers posed and conviction they received from the engineers. Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for O-ring seals repair and his engineers, had strongly opposed the launch. However, their regards were not valued and dismissed making them reverse their allegations and recommend a go situation.DeBonos parallel thinking is a process where the issue of subject matter is separately split in different directions to enable members critically explore and come up with knowledgeable facts, proofs, and comments. When applied within groups, it focuses on proving or disapproving the comments put across thereby eliminating the ineffectiveness of groupthink. DeBonos parallel thinking would not have worked for the disaster. The process has perfect decision-making resolutions, but the strong forces displayed by the organization structure and culture only supported the space shuttle top management and director personnel’s decisions. It was difficult to present any opinion for fear of disapproval and discouragement as it happened to Thiokol after he was asked by the space center managers when he wanted them to launch. The space shuttle challenger tragedy occurred as a result of flaws in the decision-making process. The challenger case used advocacy decision-making approach which makes it difficult for DeBonos parallel thinking to work out. Decision-making process highly depends on the organization structure and culture for it to be effective and useful. Reference:David Moseley, Vivienne Baumfield, and Julian Elliott, (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press, pg 135.Edward De Bono, (1994). Parallel thinking: from Socraticthinking to de Bono thinking.Viking ISBN, Pg 36-38.Ronald C. Kramer (1994). The Challenger Explosion: Communication Ethics. Wadsworth Publishing. from external expertise on the issue. In the case of the disaster, the advocacy decision-making approach dominated. The reasons are their concept of decision making was that of a contest. NASA had ambitious goals to create an operational shuttle and institutionalize a heavy schedule of flights. Hence, they persuaded and defended their position to continue with the flights regardless of the dangers posed and conviction they received from the engineers. Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for O-ring seals repair and his engineers, had strongly opposed the launch. However, their regards were not valued and dismissed making them reverse their allegations and recommend a go situation.DeBonos parallel thinking is a process where the issue of subject matter is separately split in different directions to enable members critically explore and come up with knowledgeable facts, proofs, and comments. When applied within groups, it focuses on proving or disapproving the comments put across thereby eliminating the ineffectiveness of groupthink. DeBonos parallel thinking would not have worked for the disaster. The process has perfect decision-making resolutions, but the strong forces displayed by the organization structure and culture only supported the space shuttle top management and director personnel’s decisions. It was difficult to present any opinion for fear of disapproval and discouragement as it happened to Thiokol after he was asked by the space center managers when he wanted them to launch. The space shuttle challenger tragedy occurred as a result of flaws in the decision-making process. The challenger case used advocacy decision-making approach which makes it difficult for DeBonos parallel thinking to work out. Decision-making process highly depends on the organization structure and culture for it to be effective and useful. Reference:David Moseley, Vivienne Baumfield, and Julian Elliott, (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press, pg 135.Edward De Bono, (1994). Parallel thinking: from Socraticthinking to de Bono thinking.Viking ISBN, Pg 36-38.Ronald C. Kramer (1994). The Challenger Explosion: Communication Ethics. Wadsworth Publishing.The space shuttle disaster claimed seven lives with school teacher Christa McAuliffe on board. A fault technically caused this disaster in the O-rings seals. The case study also showed that the tragedy resulted from flaws in decision-making process presented by the organization structure and culture. The warnings of O-rings seal failure were communicated three months before departure, but the NASA and Kennedy space center management ignored. This study prompts to identify whether advocacy or inquiry approach dominated the decision-making process and if DeBonos parallel thinking would have worked in the challenger situation.Decisions are important aspects in the running of an organization. However, not every decision made is useful and effective to the problems identified. Advocacy approach of decision making represents a management by exemption situation. Further, where the leaders advocate for decisions, they feel strongly about without inquiring other expertise views on the matter. Inquiry approach of decision making represents an ideal and realistic handling of decisions. They discuss the problem without expressing personal agendas or opinions. Instead, they advocate for the stands they feel strongly about and then inquire other viewpoints from external expertise on the issue. In the case of the disaster, the advocacy decision-making approach dominated. The reasons are their concept of decision making was that of a contest. NASA had ambitious goals to create an operational shuttle and institutionalize a heavy schedule of flights. Hence, they persuaded and defended their position to continue with the flights regardless of the dangers posed and conviction they received from the engineers. Morton Thiokol, the contractor responsible for O-ring seals repair and his engineers, had strongly opposed the launch. However, their regards were not valued and dismissed making them reverse their allegations and recommend a go situation.DeBonos parallel thinking is a process where the issue of subject matter is separately split in different directions to enable members critically explore and come up with knowledgeable facts, proofs, and comments. When applied within groups, it focuses on proving or disapproving the comments put across thereby eliminating the ineffectiveness of groupthink. DeBonos parallel thinking would not have worked for the disaster. The process has perfect decision-making resolutions, but the strong forces displayed by the organization structure and culture only supported the space shuttle top management and director personnel’s decisions. It was difficult to present any opinion for fear of disapproval and discouragement as it happened to Thiokol after he was asked by the space center managers when he wanted them to launch. The space shuttle challenger tragedy occurred as a result of flaws in the decision-making process. The challenger case used advocacy decision-making approach which makes it difficult for DeBonos parallel thinking to work out. Decision-making process highly depends on the organization structure and culture for it to be effective and useful. Reference:David Moseley, Vivienne Baumfield, and Julian Elliott, (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press, pg 135.Edward De Bono, (1994). Parallel thinking: from Socraticthinking to de Bono thinking.Viking ISBN, Pg 36-38.Ronald C. Kramer (1994). The Challenger Explosion: Communication Ethics. Wadsworth Publishing.
